Teaching methods

I just read [this][yonkyo], which is Joel Riggs account of the
[Atlanta Friendship Seminar][mine].  I am so used to Yamada Sensei’s
teaching that it is always surprising to me to see how others respond
to it.  There are such different expectations of how training should
go between different instructors.  I feel great frustration when the
class is to much about the instructor talking and imparting wisdom and
not enough training.  My personal experience is that the kind of
instructor that offers extensive dialog, discussion, question and
answer, exploration of any philosophy or attitudinal adjustment behind
the movements, and examination of the relationship of mind to body do
not produce better students than those that simply demonstrate the
principles physically and expect the students to figure things out for
themselves.
I have taken classes with some students of Yamada Sensei that
presumably had very similar training sessions with him that I have had
and had extremely strong and subtle technique that I admired greatly,
but were not effectively passing down their knowledge to their
students.  My opinion is that the difference is in the instructional
method; to achieve the same results, the training must be presented in
the same way.  Yamada Sensei’s method is to present mostly basic
techniques preformed in a vigorous way and allow the students to find
their own way to recreate the technique.  This is sometimes referred
to as the “steal my technique” method, that is if you want to do what
I do you must put in the effort to find your own way of understanding
it.  Many other teachers present, along with vigorous demonstrations,
many analogies and “spiritual” discussions on how Aikido training
works on the student.  While I have found the demonstrations and
discussions from these teachers sometimes very inspiring, the students
that are attracted to this method are of no better quality than those
of Yamada Sensei.  The historical record indicates that O Sensei in
general followed the “steal my technique” approach, but he could also
present very difficult esoteric explanations that demanded extensive
knowledge from the audience.  He certainly didn’t make it easy on the
students.  In my opinion, this is why his students were often of so
high quality, but all very different.  The demands were not from the
student on the instructor to present the information in a clearer
format, but demands by the instructor on the student to work hard and
come up with their own answers.
Mr. Riggs ends his post with:
> I met several wonderful people from dojos around the South, and look
> forward to visiting and training with them again in the future.  I
> also found that I felt more deeply connected to my own teacher’s
> approach to the art and felt more committed to the directions of
> training and teaching that I have begun in my own dojo.
I am glad that he enjoyed meeting and training with our guests.
Having read his comments about Yamada Sensei, I also feel even more
deeply connected to my teacher’s approach.
[mine]: /2009/06/28/atlanta-friendship-seminar/ “Atlanta Friendship Seminar”
[yonkyo]: http://www.yonkyo.com/2009/06/east-coast-style.html “Joel Riggs blog”

I just read this, which is Joel Riggs account of the Atlanta Friendship Seminar.  I am so used to Yamada Sensei’s teaching that it is always surprising to me to see how others respond to it.  There are such different expectations of how training should go between different instructors.  I feel great frustration when the class is to much about the instructor talking and imparting wisdom and not enough training.  My personal experience is that the kind of instructor that offers extensive dialog, discussion, question and answer, exploration of any philosophy or attitudinal adjustment behind the movements, and examination of the relationship of mind to body do not produce better students than those that simply demonstrate the principles physically and expect the students to figure things out for themselves.

I have taken classes with some students of Yamada Sensei that presumably had very similar training sessions with him that I have had and had extremely strong and subtle technique that I admired greatly, but were not effectively passing down their   knowledge to their students.  My opinion is that the difference is in the instructional method; to achieve the same results, the training must be presented in the same way.  Yamada Sensei’s method is to present mostly basic techniques preformed in a vigorous way and allow the students to find their own way to recreate the technique.  This is sometimes referred to as the “steal my technique” method, that is if you want to do what I do you must put in the effort to find your own way of understanding it.  Many other teachers present, along with vigorous demonstrations, many analogies and “spiritual” discussions on how Aikido training works on the student.  While I have found the demonstrations and discussions from these teachers sometimes very inspiring, the students that are attracted to this method are of no better quality than those of Yamada Sensei.  The historical record indicates that O Sensei in general followed the “steal my technique” approach, but he could also present very difficult esoteric explanations that demanded extensive knowledge from the audience.  He certainly didn’t make it easy on the students.  In my opinion, this is why his students were often of so high quality, but all very different.  The demands were not from the student on the instructor to present the information in a clearer format, but demands by the instructor on the student to work hard and come up with their own answers.

Mr. Riggs ends his post with:

I met several wonderful people from dojos around the South, and look forward to visiting and training with them again in the future.  I  also found that I felt more deeply connected to my own teacher’s approach to the art and felt more committed to the directions of training and teaching that I have begun in my own dojo.

I am glad that he enjoyed meeting and training with our guests, and I enjoyed meeting him (I didn’t get a chance to train with him, maybe next time). Having read his comments about Yamada Sensei, I also feel even more deeply connected to my teacher’s approach.

Tags:

2 Responses to “Teaching methods”

  1. Dan Herak Says:

    I really enjoyed this post and think it sheds light on some important issues and touches upon at least one other important, though rarely discussed, point. I agree that instructors, even high ranking ones, who try to impart wisdom or insight verbally are often not using precious mat time efficiently. My experience contrasted with that of my friend demonstrated this point to me.

    We both started at an independent dojo in Cleveland with an instructor who trained through ASU. My friend moved to Phoenix and has received her shodan through ASU. Part of that training, however, consisted of the dojo cho regularly calling her and several other students to the back mat area for the second half of class for lectures on aikdo. I moved to Florida where I train at Florida Aikikai (as you know, a Federation dojo). Although I now appreciate the emphasis on basic technique, I found it very frustrating at first compared to my previous concept-oriented training.

    I went to visit my friend and, despite her dan ranking as compared to my yukyushu-for-life limbo, I was (and I mean no disrespect here) really underwhelmed by not only her technique, but that of others at the dojo. Where was the benefit of all the dissertations?

    I think one issue that this touches upon, though, is the issue of shihan worhip (as opposed to shihan respect) one sees in some branches of aikido. Or, put more narrowly, the tendency of some to develop a cult of personality with respect to their shihan to the point of denigrating not only what others have to offer, but the manner in which the information is presented by someone with a different approach. I had that strong feeling upon reading Joel Riggs piece, although will explicitly state that I do not know the man and am merely going upon the tone of his interpretation of Yamada Sensei’s seminar. But I could not shake the thought that what Riggs Sensei wanted was a shihan with the same style as Robert Nadeau Shihan (under whom Riggs Sensei trained) but with slightly different information.

    Although I am happy with the Federation, one benefit to having trained independently at first is that I haver found myself more open to a variety of what others can teach me (though perhaps that is my ego speaking; alas, I cannot say). That is not to say I think it is all good. I have seen some high ranked instructors teach techniques that I, lowly perch that I may occupy, think are useless in terms of self-defense, and often just extensions of the instructor’s ego on the mat. But those relate to individual techniques or instructors, not general concepts.

    Just my $0.02, for what it is worth.

  2. Edwin Stearns Says:

    Thank you for your comments. Open mindedness as a student (or a teacher) is a very good quality and one that I would like to develop more. Deep knowledge requires looking at you own hidden assumptions and often the best way to do that is to train with those from a different background and experience. When I look back at my post, I am dismayed at my negative tone towards Mr. Riggs honest assessment. I am sure that he has learned and experienced many things that are closed to me because of my background. I will keep working on that open mindedness thing that is so elusive.

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.